Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

djones520 wrote:It suprises me all the complaining about allies. It makes me think that many of those folks never played in 2nd edition.

I would bet that the majority of today's 40K populace has not played 2nd edition .

Did people even play 2nd edition "competitively"?

From my memory of it, people either.

1) Played it 'as intended' - an afternoon (and evening, and night) playing the game.

2) In modern parlance, trolled each other with rad grenades and virus bombs etc

warboss wrote:Call me old fashioned but I like the idea that an army has a weakness that you need to consider when playing or playing against them...

I would like it, if GW were ever smart enough to design codices in such a way that armies have weaknesses, but they aren't crippling, and you're given something else to make up for it. Tau supposedly have superior shooting to make up for being complete ass in CC, but that's kind of a joke when every other army in the game can put out more shots than you, and the few shots you do have don't even hit half the time. fething Space Wolves have superior firepower FFS and they're supposed to be a bunch of drunk vikings.

Most of the time when armies have "weaknesses" it's due to poor game balance, not any kind of grand plan by GW. Unless the plan for Tau was to make the experience of playing with them unbearably frustrating so no one would buy the models.

I would like it, if GW were ever smart enough to design codices in such a way that armies have weaknesses, but they aren't crippling, and you're given something else to make up for it. Tau supposedly have superior shooting to make up for being complete ass in CC, but that's kind of a joke when every other army in the game can put out more shots than you, and the few shots you do have don't even hit half the time. fething Space Wolves have superior firepower FFS and they're supposed to be a bunch of drunk vikings.

Well since tau arent complete asses in CC that is not a valid point.
Firewarriors compared to guardsmen do better in CC (way better saves) and then tau have kroot etc so what is this sucks in CC whining all about I wonder.

Compel wrote:Did people even play 2nd edition "competitively"?

From my memory of it, people either.

1) Played it 'as intended' - an afternoon (and evening, and night) playing the game.

2) In modern parlance, trolled each other with rad grenades and virus bombs etc

Vortex Grenade, single use, just basically obliterated anything under the template.

I played BA, in 2nd edition, and Lord Mephiston NEVER died, ever. Wargear invulnearble save, Psychic Power invulnerable save, Look out sir card, etc.. Then 3rd edition didn't just nerf him, they beat him with a steel baseball bat.

All I know is that thanks to allies I will never loose to Tau, orks, SW, IG, BA, GK, Sisters, DA, Chaos, SM, DE, Eldar, BT, Deamons, and Necrons ever again.

I'll loose to SM/Tau, BA/SW, GK/IG, etc. about as often as I loose any other game now. Because, I think that is all I'm going to be seeing.

Armies are supposed to have weakness, hell my army has weaknesses. The point is to play to your armies strengths and win inspite of your weaknesses. If everything is all strength and no weakness, we might as well all be playing checkers.

Pyriel- wrote:
Firewarriors compared to guardsmen do better in CC (way better saves) and then tau have kroot etc so what is this sucks in CC whining all about I wonder.

Wow... I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone claim that. So... the IG being able to swing first and hit more often (better Initiative and WS) is dwarfed by a 1 point better save? You clearly have never played that exact fight on the tabletop nor crunched the numbers in mathhammer either. Kroot can take down IG but that's not exactly an achievement for the galactic annals of close combat either... In the grimdarkness of the future, nobody brags about being able to beat up IG in close combat.

Yeah. Fire Warriors are at a disadvantage against Guardsmen in close combat. The Guardsmen hit 2/3 of the time, wound 1/2 of the time, and get 1/2 of their wounds through armor for 1/6 of a kill per attack. Fire Warriors hit Guardsmen 1/2 of the time, wound 1/2 of the time, and get 2/3 of their wounds through armor for the exact same 1/6 of a kill per attack. However, the Guardsmen strike first, so any Fire Warriors that die don't get a chance to attack. Further, Imperial Guard squads have Sergeants with two additional attacks (two on profile, one for dual armed), while Fire Warrior Shas'uis only get one additional attack.

To make matters worse, Guardsmen cost about half as much as Fire Warriors. When you're at a disadvantage when fighting at equal numbers with a unit that is half your cost it seems confusing and wrong to claim that you are better in close combat.

The one advantage that Fire Warriors do have in close combat is that their low Weapon Skill is irrelevant against units with Weapon Skill 4 or higher, who would already hit on 3+ even against Weapon Skill 3. So Fire Warriors are indeed slightly better than Guardsmen against Marines in that they have more survivability. However, the advantage is minimal, and when you consider the greatly increased cost for a Fire Warrior over a Guardsman, it becomes largely irrelevant.

Wow... I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone claim that. So... the IG being able to swing first and hit more often (better Initiative and WS) is dwarfed by a 1 point better save? You clearly have never played that exact fight on the tabletop nor crunched the numbers in mathhammer either. Kroot can take down IG but that's not exactly an achievement for the galactic annals of close combat either... In the grimdarkness of the future, nobody brags about being able to beat up IG in close combat.

So you choose to "forget" about kroot in order to make your own point stronger...I see.
Must be nice and cozy to be ignorant.

True, it´s not a super melee unit but still gives some armies the run for the money in cc and *gasp* is no longer the weakest army of them all in melee.

As for mathammer, yes if you are arrogant enough to take 10 IG out of thin air and put them in melee with 7 firewarriors (the usual comparable point cost) then yes, IG will win.
However, should you actually start to play this game yourself you will no doubt notice that there is more to it then just taking unit A and magically putting it in CC base to base with unit B.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, I can bet money on that GW will lower the point cost of firewarriors and kroot significantly in the next tau codex. The trend to make troops spammable will in all probability continue.

Pyriel- wrote:

Wow... I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone claim that. So... the IG being able to swing first and hit more often (better Initiative and WS) is dwarfed by a 1 point better save? You clearly have never played that exact fight on the tabletop nor crunched the numbers in mathhammer either. Kroot can take down IG but that's not exactly an achievement for the galactic annals of close combat either... In the grimdarkness of the future, nobody brags about being able to beat up IG in close combat.

So you choose to "forget" about kroot in order to make your own point stronger...I see.
Must be nice and cozy to be ignorant.

True, it´s not a super melee unit but still gives some armies the run for the money in cc and *gasp* is no longer the weakest army of them all in melee.

As for mathammer, yes if you are arrogant enough to take 10 IG out of thin air and put them in melee with 7 firewarriors (the usual comparable point cost) then yes, IG will win.
However, should you actually start to play this game yourself you will no doubt notice that there is more to it then just taking unit A and magically putting it in CC base to base with unit B.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, I can bet money on that GW will lower the point cost of firewarriors and kroot significantly in the next tau codex. The trend to make troops spammable will in all probability continue.

Both strike after marines with worse saves and T3. Of course weight of attacks could well kill a few marines. However it takes 12 kroot attacks to kill a single marine whilst it only takes 3 marine attacks to kill a single kroot. So in that regard, so long as kroot get the charge, they can possibly equal marines in terms of close combat capability...if they have three or more time the models that is.

Plus you are using a single entry in the codex to justify an army wide close combat issue. Also with the new rule meaning outflanking units can't assault, kroot just took a massive hit.

Pyriel- wrote:
Besides, I can bet money on that GW will lower the point cost of firewarriors and kroot significantly in the next tau codex. The trend to make troops spammable will in all probability continue.

I really hope not. Tau do not need to become a horde army. There are already enough of those. They just need stats, guns, and abilities that make their 10 points worth 10 points.

Jayden63 wrote:

Pyriel- wrote:
Besides, I can bet money on that GW will lower the point cost of firewarriors and kroot significantly in the next tau codex. The trend to make troops spammable will in all probability continue.

I really hope not. Tau do not need to become a horde army. There are already enough of those. They just need stats, guns, and abilities that make their 10 points worth 10 points.

You could have Eldar Guardians instead.

Plus you are using a single entry in the codex to justify an army wide close combat issue. Also with the new rule meaning outflanking units can't assault, kroot just took a massive hit.

I know but it was a fun way to counter someone "forgetting" about kroot in a tau codex as well as taking units out of thin air and comparing only one aspect of their roles in order to prove a point

I really hope not. Tau do not need to become a horde army. There are already enough of those. They just need stats, guns, and abilities that make their 10 points worth 10 points.

I hope that wont happen too but looking at how troop point costs have changed (grey hunters, necron warriors, grey knights etc) we are probably ending up with some gakking 6p a piece firewarrior spam or something equally dreadful in the next codex. After all GW needs to sell models in bigger numbers.

Pyriel- wrote:

Wow... I think that's the first time I've ever seen someone claim that. So... the IG being able to swing first and hit more often (better Initiative and WS) is dwarfed by a 1 point better save? You clearly have never played that exact fight on the tabletop nor crunched the numbers in mathhammer either. Kroot can take down IG but that's not exactly an achievement for the galactic annals of close combat either... In the grimdarkness of the future, nobody brags about being able to beat up IG in close combat.

So you choose to "forget" about kroot in order to make your own point stronger...I see.
Must be nice and cozy to be ignorant.

True, it´s not a super melee unit but still gives some armies the run for the money in cc and *gasp* is no longer the weakest army of them all in melee.

As for mathammer, yes if you are arrogant enough to take 10 IG out of thin air and put them in melee with 7 firewarriors (the usual comparable point cost) then yes, IG will win.
However, should you actually start to play this game yourself you will no doubt notice that there is more to it then just taking unit A and magically putting it in CC base to base with unit B.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Besides, I can bet money on that GW will lower the point cost of firewarriors and kroot significantly in the next tau codex. The trend to make troops spammable will in all probability continue.

IG have Ogryn, S5, T5, W3 and a 5+ save. So I guess that means that Tau are back on the bottom of the CC pile.

Pyriel- wrote:As for mathammer, yes if you are arrogant enough to take 10 IG out of thin air and put them in melee with 7 firewarriors (the usual comparable point cost) then yes, IG will win.
However, should you actually start to play this game yourself you will no doubt notice that there is more to it then just taking unit A and magically putting it in CC base to base with unit B.

I'm using the EXACT scenario you postulated in your "tau don't suck at CC" post. You're basing your "theory" of Tau not sucking at close combat on the (incorrect) premise that fire warriors can beat IG in CC. LOL, you're even cherry picking your baseline unit as the IG which are renowned for getting their butts kicked by EVERYONE but the tau in close combat. If you think that comparison that you yourself postulated is arrogant, far be it for me to stop you trolling yourself.

Either way, my Tau won't suck in close combat anymore now that they have their bestest friends ever (the space marines) around to help them when those mean Catachans come looking for a fist fight. The kroot, frankly, with their T3 and NO SAVE were never very reliable even when they themselves were charging.

IG which are renowned for getting their butts kicked by EVERYONE

Thus according to you, IG are the very worst in CC of every codex.
lol

My point is, in case you "forgot", that tau can be build in a way that no longer automatically make them the worst thing in melee since the invention of sliced bread.

Either way, my Tau won't suck in close combat anymore now that they have their bestest friends ever (the space marines) around to help them

Dont remind me, I absolutely hate that allies-crap in the rule book.

IG have Ogryn, S5, T5, W3 and a 5+ save. So I guess that means that Tau are back on the bottom of the CC pile.

I did not know ogryns, a specialized and expensive melee unit was the equivalent to spammable CC-ish alternatives to firewarriors.
How many ogryns do you have in your CC oriented IG army again, 40? 80?

Pyriel- wrote:

IG have Ogryn, S5, T5, W3 and a 5+ save. So I guess that means that Tau are back on the bottom of the CC pile.

I did not know ogryns, a specialized and expensive melee unit was the equivalent to spammable CC-ish alternatives to firewarriors.
How many ogryns do you have in your CC oriented IG army again, 40? 80?

You claimed that Tau were not the worst CC army there is, on the basis of a single unit in their Codex being halfway good in CC. I claim that they are as the only Codex that is possibly as bad has a unit which is better than the Tau option.

Pyriel- wrote:

IG which are renowned for getting their butts kicked by EVERYONE

Thus according to you, IG are the very worst in CC of every codex.
lol

Now I know you're just trolling and have absolutely nothing useful to say nor are you capable of having a reasoned discussion. You're selectively quoting and deleting parts of my sentances in order to twist my words to "prove" you're right. The full sentance I wrote:

warboss wrote: LOL, you're even cherry picking your baseline unit as the IG which are renowned for getting their butts kicked by EVERYONE but the tau in close combat.

You claimed that Tau were not the worst CC army there is, on the basis of a single unit in their Codex being halfway good in CC. I claim that they are as the only Codex that is possibly comparably as bad has a unit which is better than the Tau option.

I still claim they are not always the worst melee army simply because they are given builds that are cc oriented and dont rely on ridiculous analogues like ogryns or descriptions only using Cliché points.
Take a look at orks, an extremely CC oriented army...but wait, lets simply swap two main units for a couple equally viable and cheap ones (without grasping any ogryn comparisons) and all of a sudden we end up with one of the most shooty armies of them all.

Now I know you're just trolling and have absolutely nothing useful to say nor are you capable of having a reasoned discussion. You're selectively quoting and deleting parts of my sentances in order to twist my words to "prove" you're right. The full sentance I wrote:

Have fun with you opinion.

wyomingfox wrote:

djones520 wrote:It suprises me all the complaining about allies. It makes me think that many of those folks never played in 2nd edition.

I would bet that the majority of today's 40K populace has not played 2nd edition .

But you don't have to go back all the way to 2nd edition to find Allies. 3rd edition Inquisition books could be used as Allies and last of them (Witch Hunters) was obsoleted less than a year ago. Granted they weren't quite as crazy or widespread as current Ally rules, but they were still available to all Imperial armies, ie. about half of all armies in the game.

Pyriel- wrote:

You claimed that Tau were not the worst CC army there is, on the basis of a single unit in their Codex being halfway good in CC. I claim that they are as the only Codex that is possibly comparably as bad has a unit which is better than the Tau option.

I still claim they are not always the worst melee army simply because they are given builds that are cc oriented and dont rely on ridiculous analogues like ogryns or descriptions only using Cliché points.
Take a look at orks, an extremely CC oriented army...but wait, lets simply swap two main units for a couple equally viable and cheap ones (without grasping any ogryn comparisons) and all of a sudden we end up with one of the most shooty armies of them all.

Now I know you're just trolling and have absolutely nothing useful to say nor are you capable of having a reasoned discussion. You're selectively quoting and deleting parts of my sentances in order to twist my words to "prove" you're right. The full sentance I wrote:

Have fun with you opinion.

Then who is the worst melee army, the bottom of the totem pole is tau

Good thing Tau and IG close comabt is a discussion that deals with the FAQ....wait....

adhuin wrote:Option:
Fortress of Redemption (everyone)
Ally detachment (no tyranids allowed, see rulebook for options)
Squad of Tactical Marines (does not apply to all armies. See codex)
Meltagun (also codex dependant option)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DarkStarSabre wrote:
Emphasis mine. Unless you're quite happy for every opponent you face to show up with a Fortress of Redemption and a smug grin on their face.

Whatever happened to placing things on the field because of the way they looked? Whatever happened to the convenience of house rules for people wanting to fire the guns etc. from a building.

I woudl be happy. He spends 200+ for firing positions, which I can spend on units.

You still can setup terrain cooperatively, IF your opponent agrees. Same with house rules: IF your opponent agrees.

Yeah there is some odd stuff for sure in 6th edition and while the fortification rules are odd they do have some advantages I just have to wonder if we will soon be seeing race specific fortifications? And what will help balance Tyranids because they can ally with no one and so other armies will have 3 HQ choices to there 2 4 Elites to their 3 8 troops to their 6 and so on down the line, what balance do they get there?

But I figure in most big tournies if you buy the fortification for your army they will let you place it where you wish within the confines of what they have set up already. I can see myself maybe buying the aegis line and the quad gun but that's about it, sorry but I'm not hauling a fortress of redemption to some Con or my local gamestore, sorry not gonna happen.

Also why this cash grab outcry? If your like me you just spent 80 bucks on a rule book, not ot mention possibly the new tape measure or the templates; and have probably spent thousands of dollars on armies and codex already, add in paints and supplies there? GW is a business and along with Citadel they are in the business of selling a product for money. If you complain about how much this game costs then its not the game for you, or I've got one, get some self control and learn to say "I'm not gonna buy anymore my 7 armies of 4000 points a piece will just have to do and my entire bombed out ruined city worth of scenery that I already own will just have to be enough.

Sometimes complaining is justified, for example the yearly price increase that is sometimes so outrageous, like how a Rhino was 25 bucks when I first started playing this game 3 almost four years ago and it has almost doubled in price in that time, so that I'm game but some of these cash grab arguments are just silly.

I have yet to meet a 40K player with just 1 army, and that includes players with only a year under their belt. (There armies may not be finished but WIP is still owned by said player)

Formosa wrote:At first i thought allies were a good way of adding some stuff to fluffy armies, then i played an ork player with GK allies... um ok.
Next I played Tau with SW allies... um ok
Then lastly I played Chaos marines with Deamon allies... ah ha! finally an army that makes sense.

I look foward to fluffy allies, but totally dread WAAC allies list, so far i have refused to play 2k+ games as the group as most of the games i play are against WAAC people (vassal, but not everyone is like this)

All of those have nice and easy fluffy explanations:

Orkz and GK? GK can ally with practically anything because a) they are inquisition, and no one ask the inquisition what they are doying, and b) they are jerks who care not about anything besides killing daemons. So, guess it: GK grand masters decided that helping that little one green horde was necessary to beat a chance of chaos incursion somewhere. Fluffy as hell!!!

Tau and SW: this one could be more tricky, but basically, Space Wolves dont care so much to Empire Rules, somewhat a wolf lord started to like some Tau force, and decided to help them in dire circunstances. You know, space wolves are attained to a very specific code of honor, who basically say "respect those who show greatness in battle".

Chaos Marines and Daemons are just a dumb easy alliance, they should be in the same codex...

One thing allies bring is the ideia that each 40k game is a possibility of how something could have happened somewhere into the scenario. Your list is not the exact force your cammander have, but what it had for that spacific battle. That way, it is very easy to explain it, as allied alliances are not "happy familys" who travel the space together, they are situational allys willing to fight ONE battle together...

The real problem behind this allys thing is not the fluff, but the codex creep created by the sillyness of GW game designers. It would not be a bad thing, if we dont have "better units" or "better codexes" in the game. Look at warpath and Kings of War from Mantic games, you can create the force you want fallowing some simple rules (1 core unit = 1 unit of other types from the same list), but all units are balanced and worth its points (in some cases it was not that way, but the community showed it, and Mantic gladdly changed unit stats, officially).